the extant ormonde pistoles and double pistoles of 1646

Transcription

THE EXTANT ORMONDE PISTOLES AND
D O U B L E P I S T O L E S O F 1646
W.
A.
SEABY
AND
G.
BRADY
THE historical background to this somewhat remarkable issue of authorized but nonregal gold coins was dealt with during recent years both by Dr. William O'Sullivan 1
and by Mr. Michael Dolley.2 Here it is the present writers' intention to sketch in the
pedigrees of the examples known or thought to have survived so far as it is possible to
trace them from their sources; and to put forward explanations for such anomalies as
occur in the scant accounts available. At the end of the general discussion each coin is
separately identified by the dies used in its striking, and illustrated by both faces on
PL 2; this should prevent any equivocation in their future recognition. An attempt is
also made to gauge the over-all extent of the output by various methods; and the paper
concludes with a note on certain modern counterfeits of American origin, three examples,
all apparently from the same dies, being shown on the plate.
Early in May 1839 James Carruthers, who lived at Glencregah, near Belfast, procured
from the locality3 a gold coin which he sketched at the head of a letter sent to Dean
Dawson at Dublin 4 (Fig. 1). He notes that it has all the appearance of an Inchiquin coin
|
OS
FIG.
H *
]
and thinks that it may 'be unique since neither Simon or Lindsay mention gold having
been struck by that person'. 5 The single-face illustration of this piece is unsatisfactory
for determination of die identity because the figures, colons, and script letters are somewhat thicker than any examples known; and because there is no indication as to whether
there was an even striking over the whole surface or the lettering was only partly struck
up as in most of the specimens extant today. Furthermore, by showing only one face
and stating 'OB and RE alike', Carruthers may well have used details from both sides
to make up a single representation.
The most noticeable feature, for example, is the serif at the end of the cross bar of
1
W. O'Sullivan, 'The Only Gold Coins issued in
Ireland 1646', BNJxxxiii (1964), pp. 141-50.
2
M. Dolley, 'A note on the Weight and Fineness of
the 1646 Ormonde "Pistole" ', BNJ xxxv (1966),
pp. 152-4.
3
See below, p. 82 para. 2, for the exact wording
used by Carruthers for this find.
4
Amongst letters of Henry Richard Dawson, Dean
of St. Patrick's, housed at the Royal Irish Academy
and shortly to be published. We are indebted to
Mr. Michael Dolley for first calling our attention to
this most important document.
6
Carruthers had in mind the issue of 1642 by the
Lord Justices, but at the date of Carruthers's letter,
and until comparatively recently, the silver coinage
stamped with weights only was invariably called
'Inchiquin Money'. See W. O'Sullivan, op. cit.,
p. 141.
T H E E X T A N T O R M O N D E P I S T O L E S A N D D O U B L E P I S T O L E S O F 1646
81
the 4 which is strongly marked; and if a figure of this form was depicted on his coin,
it is only the second time this particular idiosyncrasy has been noted. This is not to
suggest that a serif in this position, and not also on the foot of the 4, gives an impression
of falsity, because on the numerous dated coins of Charles I, struck in the English
Royalist strongholds, various forms of 4 are to be seen: without serifs, with serif on the
end of the cross bar, with serifs in both positions, and with curled end to the foot. On
the other hand, the very large and decisive serif on Carruthers's coin may be of special
significance, because we know from the Carte manuscripts that there were two gold
issues, the first by a warrant dated 29 July 1646 the coins to have a gold standard of only
19 carats, and the second of 1 February 1646/7 stating the coins are to be of 'an alloy
betwixt 20 and 22 carotts'. 1 On close examination of the Chapman/Murdoch pistole,
now in the American Numismatic Society's collection in New York, it is noted that that
coin was struck from rusty dies Nos. 1 and 3 (see below under P. 2 and P. 3(b)) which
had been altered to the extent of having a serif added to the cross bar of each 4, so the
conclusion here surely must be that it belongs to the second issue.2
It seems most improbable that the authenticity of the gold coin possessed by Carruthers can be in question. When Carruthers wrote to Dawson, John Lindsay's book on
the Irish Coinage had just been published and there is no hint in it that the Cork numismatist had any knowledge whatever of these so-called 'Inchiquin' pistoles. Simon
certainly found no reference to them when he was going through the documents in the
Birmingham Tower at Dublin, and no numismatist of later date seems to have taken note
of the relevant Ormonde Papers, deposited by Thomas Carte during the years 1753-4
in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, until Dr. William O'Sullivan came across the published
reference thirteen years ago.3 In other words, James Carruthers had made an entirely
independent numismatic discovery; and only one other source for an early counterfeiter
seems possible—the Bridgewater House cabinet belonging to the Earl of Ellesmere which
contained two double pistoles and two single pistoles in all probability acquired in the
seventeenth century. Since, however, this old collection had been made much less
available to those carrying out numismatic studies than, for example, that of the Earl
of Pembroke 4 it is most unlikely that a forger would or could have obtained a cast from
one of the Bridgewater House coins; and even less likely, if he did so, that he should
have used a serifed figure where none existed on either face of the two Bridgewater
specimens. And if a pistole had been forged why not a double pistole?
This being the case it is indeed ironical that at the auction sale of coins belonging to
James Carruthers, held at Sotheby's on 26 and 27 January 1857, lot 55 should be
described in the printed catalogue as Tnchinquin, Gold, stamped 4 dwt. 7 grs false'' and
that the successful bidder, Eastwood the dealer, should have purchased it for a mere
13 shillings, which was then barely the value of the gold content. The lot was evidently
associated in the cataloguer's mind with the previous lot, lot 54 Tnchinquin, stamped
3 dwt 21 gr; 1 dwt 22 gr; and 1 dwt 6 gr, all false''-, again these were purchased by Eastwood, at 15 shillings.
1
O'Sullivan, op. cit., p. 142, quoting from transcription of the Carte MSS., edited by Russell and
Prendergast and published by H.M.S.O. in 1871.
2
We are indebted to the American Numismatic
Society and to Mr. Patrick Finn for the photograph
used to illustrate this paper.
4080 C 75
3
O'Sullivan, loc. cit.
This collection was referred to as early as 1726
by S. M. Leake in Nummi Britannici Historia, p. 15,
and plates of coins from the collection were published
1746; the sale of the Pembroke collection took place
at Sotheby's on 31 July 1848.
4
G
T H E E X T A N T O R M O N D E P I S T O L E S A N D D O U B L E P I S T O L E S O F 1646 82
Counterfeit 'Inehiquin' silver coins date back to the early nineteenth century, probably even earlier than this, and attention was drawn to them by Aquilla Smith writing
only three years later than the Carruthers sale.1 He says:
These forgeries were executed previous to the publication of the first edition of Ruding's Annals of
the Coinage in 1817 in which there is an engraving of the nine-pence, Plate XXVII Fig. 4. The same
coin was previously published in Folkes Table of English Coins, but as the work is not often met with
in Ireland, it is probable that the person who caused the forgeries to be made was not aware of the
existence of the nine-pence.
Elsewhere in the same paper Smith writes:
Forgeries of the crown, halfcrown, shilling, sixpence, and fourpence, were manufactured some
years ago by a silversmith in Dublin under the direction of an obscure collector, who usually disposed
of his rare coins in England. When the remnant of his collection was sold by auction after his death,
I purchased a complete set of these forgeries, and at the same time, a few small blank pieces of silver
cut into polygonal form and filed preparatory to stamping them. They are all black, and were exposed
to the fumes of burning sulphur, for the purpose of giving them an antique appearance.
But to revert to the gold pistoles. Perhaps the most significant statements in the whole
complex story were those of James Carruthers himself in 1853.2 Under the date 1840
he wrote: 'About this time was found, near Belfast, a gold coin, marked on both sides
4 dwt. 7 grs., supposed to have been struck by Lord Inchiquin, in the reign of Charles I,
and to represent in value a French Pistole. This unique specimen is in my collection.'
The entry immediately following reads: '1850—• About this time five similar coins were
discovered; two of which are in the British Museum, two in the cabinet of Sir Montague
Chapman, Bart., and the other in the possession of Dr. Aquilla Smith of Dublin.'
Rather than accept this statement at face value it is sensible to analyse these entries
to see whether each can be substantiated. In the first case the conclusion from his letter
to Dawson is that Carruthers had acquired a pistole late in April or at the beginning of
May 1839,3 and it seems reasonable to treat this as the true date for the memorized
'1840', for this is by no means the only error in dating in his considerable list of finds,
partly published in the Ulster Journal of Archaeology and partly in the Journal of the
Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland.l That it was an authentic piece seems certain
both from the evidence outlined above and from its acceptance by Aquilla Smith, who
wrote some three years after the Carruthers sale:
The fact of coinage of gold having been issued in Ireland has not been noticed by any writer on
Irish coins, and has only been established within the last few years by the discovery of two or three
pieces. These coins are stamped on each side, 4 dwts. 7 grs., within a double circle, which extends to the
margin; the inner circle is linear, the outer beaded; the figures and letters are not arranged like those
on the silver coins. Fig. 10, Piate II, weighs 4 dwts. 6 grs. Another of the same type, but struck from
different dies, was in the cabinet of Mr. Carruthers of Belfast; its weight is 4 dwts 5 grs; the double 'tt'
over the letters 'dw' and the letter 'g' bear a striking resemblance to the letters on the crown, Fig. 3
Plate l. 5
1
A. Smith, J. Roy. Soc. Antiqs. Ireland, vi (Kilkenny, 1860-1), pp. 16 and 13. The Ulster Museum
possesses four of these forgeries, from the CarlyonBritton collection.
2
J. Carruthers, Ulster J. Archaeology, i (1853),
3
See p. 80 n. 4.
p. 164.
4
J. Carruthers, op. cit., and JRSAI iii (1854-5),
pp. 61^4-.
5
A. Smith, op. cit., p. 16. It is perhaps unfortunate
that Smith did not acknowledge the prior claim of
Carruthers in mentioning the 'Inchiquin gold' in
print, and to liken it to the French pistole; but it
is possible that Smith had not actually seen a copy
of the appropriate list of finds in the Ulster J.
Archaeology.
83
The important points in the Smith statement are: (1) that a genuine coin was in
Carruthers's cabinet; (2) that it was a grain lower in weight than Smith's; and (3), most
important of all, that it was struck from different dies, a fact which would seem to be
borne out by Carruthers's sketch, even if it so happened that these dies were altered
versions of Nos. 1 and 3 (cf. Fig. 1 and PI. 2 no. P. 2). It appears, therefore that a most
unfortunate mistake was made on the part of the cataloguer regarding the authenticity
of Carruthers's specimen, and we can now only assume that this quite genuine piece
was later committed to the crucible, in view of its non-reappearance since 1857.1
The second entry by Carruthers needs considerably more probing. The date 1850 is
only three years before he was writing, and it should be pointed out that more coin
finds seem to have come to light in Ireland during the ten years from 1840 to 1850 than
in any other similar period during the last 250 years. Nevertheless we must ask ourselves
if it is within the bounds of coincidence that such a rare and outstanding coin, completely unknown to students and collectors since Simon published his pioneer treatise
on the Irish coinage in 1749, should suddenly make its appearance twice in little more
than one decade to the tune of six specimens? While not impossible it does seem
unlikely, especially since Carruthers was the first to mention each find. Note, for instance,
that Carruthers gives no locality for this second discovery. Is he, in fact, implying merely
that he has located five further specimens since he acquired his own piece from near
Belfast in, or about, 1840?
That probability gives a new proportion and meaning to our inquiry. The two coins
in the British Museum might surely have been those in the Ellesmere collection which
we know was deposited there at this time, the cabinet having been accepted for safekeeping during the rebuilding of Bridgewater House.2 Had the Keeper of the Coins and
Medals Department been asked by letter whether he knew of such coins he could have
honestly replied that two were 'housed' at the Museum without giving away the secret
of ownership; and since double pistoles were not then in question he was under no obligation to disclose their presence as well. A recent thorough search of the Museum's own
cabinets, even including those holding coin weights and counterfeit coins, has failed to
reveal any other pistoles that form part of the permanent collection.3
The other three pistoles, which Carruthers claimed were extant in 1850, are also
difficult to accept as part of a single find made at that date. Aquilla Smith is said
to have had one of them and of this there can be no doubt since he fully described
it ten years later, complete with a drawing, so carefully engraved that not only can
it be claimed as the specimen acquired by the Royal Irish Academy on his death
in 1890 and listed by Coffey,4 but it is still readily identifiable amongst the specimens
now housed in the coin trays in the National Museum of Ireland at Dublin. 5 So far
1
There is, of course, always a slender hope that
Eastwood sold it as a curiosity with the false 'Inchiquin silver' so that it may yet turn up in a museum or
dealer's stock.
2
Foreword in Sotheby's Sale catalogue, 15 and
16 June 1972.
3
We are indebted to Mr. Michael Dolley for ihis
information, and to the staff of the museum for making
a further search. We may perhaps preclude the possibility that after the Carruthers sale two perfectly
genuine pistoles in the British Museum trays were
removed and destroyed! Then, as now, it was the
practice not to destroy pieces after condemnation but
to place them aside in a special cabinet; but they have
not shown up here either.
4
G. Coffey, Guide etc. to the Anglo-Irish coins in
the collection of the Royal Irish Academy (1895), p. 91,
under 'Money of Necessity 1642', and quoting Dr. A.
Smith's paper of 1860.
6
The outline and details of Smith's drawing may be
compared with P. 3 on PI. 2 if further proof is
required.
so good. But the two examples in Sir Montague Chapman's cabinet take rather more
explanation.
One of these can be identified with reasonable certainty. It appeared as lot 65 in the
sale of the collection of the late Sir Benjamin Chapman, Bart., 1 which took place at
Sotheby's on 8 November 1894, and was sold to Spink for £51, a very high price at that
date; but in this case the catalogue carried Dr. Smith's testimony as to the authenticity.2
The coin was sold to J. G. Murdoch and it appeared in the fourth portion of his auction
sale held at Sotheby's on 12 December 1904, lot 38, the coin being illustrated on Plate I. 3
The catalogue claimed that it was from the Chapman collection and it was purchased
again by Spink but for £47. 5s. The coin was advertised twice in the Circular4 before
being bought by Virgil T. Brand of Chicago. Subsequently it was purchased by Mrs.
E. M. Norweb of Cleveland, Ohio, by whom it was presented to the American Numismatic Society, New York, where it is now (PI. 2, P. 2).
But this is the only coin which has come down to us from the original Chapman
cabinet. What may have happened to the other? Did it exist? In his two entries Carruthers listed six coins but he may have over-calculated. Smith writing seven years later
mentioned non-committally 'the discovery of two or three pieces'. In other words he
acknowledged his own coin and that of Carruthers, and a third which must surely have
been that in the possession, not of Sir Montague Lowther Chapman, 3rd Bart., the coin
collector, who had in fact died in May 1852, but of his brother, Sir Benjamin James
Chapman, 4th Bart., the new owner of Killua Castle, Clonmellon, Co. Westmeath. It
is even possible that Aquilla Smith acquired his specimen by way of exchange or purchase from the Chapman cabinet shortly before or after the death of Sir Montague,
whom as a fellow collector he must surely have known. 5 If so everything, except the
origin of these coins, fits neatly into place, for Carruthers in 1853 might be excused for
thinking that the Chapman cabinet still contained two specimens if Smith gave him no
indication of how he had acquired his coin. Unfortunately this is only surmise, and since
the Aquilla Smith coin is a much better specimen than that which came from the Chapman cabinet, and furthermore is of the earlier stage of dies 1 and 3, we may never know
for certain, unless correspondence or memoranda amongst Dr. Smith's papers come to
light. Incidentally Smith seems to have had no knowledge of the Bridgewater specimens.
In 1839 Montague Chapman was about thirty-one and had only succeeded to the title
two years earlier. No mention of him appears in the acknowledgements to a considerable
list of collectors in Lindsay's book on Irish coins so that at the date of the original discovery 'near Belfast' the chances of Chapman some eighty miles away in Westmeath
hearing of this find might seem remote, even if at that period he had seriously started
collecting. Hoards containing gold coins found in Ireland are rare enough by any standard, and while initial discoveries were perhaps more likely to have been kept secret
1
Younger brother of Sir Montague Chapman.
'Dr. A. Smith remarks that the fact of a coinage
of gold having been issued in Ireland has only been
established within the last few years by the discovery
of two or three of these pieces.' Probably this information was taken from Lt.-Col. Stewart Thorburn, The
Coins of Great Britain (2nd edn., 1888); the sale record
is given in Thorburn's fourth edition (1905), p. 215.
3
Also illustrated and described by Philip Nelson,
BNJii (1905), pp. 333-4.
2
4
SNC, no. 168 (Nov. 1906), column 9482, no. 32802
at £53. 10J., and no. 218 (Jan. 1911), column 12536,
no. 82329 at £60.
5
J. Lindsay, Coinage of Scotland (1845), p. viii,
acknowledges help from many contemporary collectors, including Sir Montague Chapman, Bart., as
also did Richard Sainthill in Olla Podrida, ii (1853),
p. ix. In other words the older baronet was well known
to the numismatic fraternity by the mid century.
85
from police and other authorities liable to apply the law of treasure trove, nevertheless
the very fact of numismatists or antiquarians publishing lists of finds from time to time
would surely highlight any such unusual records. Some nine Irish hoards containing
gold coins from the Stuart dynasty (1603-1714) are recorded by Michael Dolley as
against a dozen from the same period in Scotland and about fifty from England and
Wales as listed by Professor Brown ;T and out of Dolley's entries five hoards are thought
to have been deposited before the Restoration. One hoard is clearly earlier than the
issues of 1646; another is believed to have included only Spanish gold, possibly from
Armada sources; the contents of a third are known; and the other two discoveries are
those containing pistoles, here under consideration. That from near Portarlington is
discussed below, but entry IP 29 in the bibliography reads 'Belfast, nr. Antrim/Down
J/37 ? 1850 5? Irish (quoting the Carruthers reference)—to be taken with reservations'.
Mr. Dolley was obviously not happy about the Carruthers 'hoard' of 1850 and has
told the writers that he would be equally willing to associate the Smith and Chapman
specimens, but not the four coins from the Bridgewater House collection, with the find
'near Belfast' in May 1839. The recovery of Carruthers's coin at that date seems incontrovertible; but the finding of other pieces on that occasion, which somehow got distributed to one or two more collectors without the exact circumstances of the find being
disclosed, must for the present and perhaps for ever remain a possibility only.
The remainder of the authentic pistoles and double pistoles have better documented
origins. It is true that no provenance can be given to the four pieces from the Bridgewater House cabinet, but their presumed age as numismatic specimens places them in
a category which requires no further credentials. Out of 615 lots in the Sotheby auction
on 15/16 June 1972, some 547 items or groups of coins were dated before 1700 and only
64 lots were from the early eighteenth century up to the year 1740. The remaining four
lots, a gold George III coronation medal and three proof Soho coins, all items that a
peer might be likely to have received as gifts, testify that the collection had been formed
earlier, presumably by one or more of the Earls of Bridgewater between c. 1640 and
1740. The two pistoles and two double pistoles in uncirculated condition might even
have been presented to John Egerton, second Earl (1622-86), by James Butler, Earl
(later Duke) of Ormonde, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland from January 1643 to July 1647.
Be that as it may, the majority of the seventeenth-century coins in the collection were
most likely to have been taken out of circulation by the enthusiastic nobleman-collector
who had the pick of a whole range of late hammered and early milled gold and silver
pieces from Britain and Ireland.
The other six specimens, deriving with almost 100 more coins from a rabbit warren
in the sandy esker at Derryville, near Portarlington, Co. Laois, three found on or about
22 March 1946, and three more on 26 February 1948, as recorded by Dr. O'Sullivan,2
are of uncontestable origin. The fact that these coins were in the hands of children and
others in that district for several months before the police were notified opens up the
slight possibility that one or more pistoles may still be in private possession or have
been sold to a collector or dealer unknown to the authorities in the Republic. Yet a
1
I. D. Brown and M. Dolley, A Bibliography of
Coin Hoards of Great Britain and Ireland 1500-1967
(1971), pp. 24-37, 47-52, 74-80. Modern recoveries
from shipwrecks are not included in these calculations
but Armada and other later coastal wrecks may have
contributed to a number of the inland deposits containing gold coins,
2
O'Sullivan, op. cit., p. 142.
proportion of only one pistole in sixteen or seventeen other gold pieces recovered would
seem to militate against the suggestion that more may have been so found.
Here we may summarize the die-identities from the ten pistoles and two double
pistoles extant, Carruthers's coin being excluded in the absence of photographic representation; the appropriate figures are as follows:
I. Double Pistoles
II. Pistoles
(a) Frequency:
(b) Combinations:
(a) Frequency:
(b) Combinations:
Die (d.p.) 1—2 strikings
Die (d.p.) 2—2 strikings
Dies (d.p.) 1 and 2—2 coins
D i e ( p . ) l — 9 strikings, including 1 striking from re-cut die.
Die (p.) 2—5 strikings
Die (p.) 3—3 strikings, including 1 striking from re-cut die.
Die (p.) 4—1 striking
Die (p.) 5—2 strikings
Dies (p.) 1 and 2—5 coins
Dies (p.) 1 and 3—3 coins, including 1 striking from re-cut
dies.
Dies (p.) 1 and 5—1 coin
Dies (p.) 4 and 5—1 coin
Pistole weights vary from 97-5 grains to 102-8 grains and give an average of 101 -2 grains,
or a nominal loss of 1-8 grains per coin at a standard of 103 grains.
From these details it will be seen that the grouping is very tight, the coins being heavily
interlinked and showing that the issue must have been relatively small. Can we get any
idea of the output ? The warrants give us virtually no clues except that the pledges were
for the relief of the distressed soldiers and 'having in our custody some bullion of gould
being of diverse uncertaine values'. And in the second warrant the issue was to ensure
that 'the inhabitants of the city of Dublin and the guarrisons neere adjacent' having been
forced 'to dispose of their gold rings, chains and broken gold', etc., 'may have some
small pledges made thereof'. It was also laid down in the first warrant that the two
goldsmiths concerned in the making of the coins were to receive (between them) one
shilling in every twenty shillings worth of bullion wrought; they also had power to call
in any other workmen goldsmiths for expedition of the minting.
Whatever the warrants may have implied regarding relief to the inhabitants of Dublin,
whether they came under civil or military jurisdiction, it was to keep the 'royalist' troops
from mutinying or at least from changing sides that Ormonde needed the 'pledges' so
badly. Such silver plate as had been available during the earlier years of the war was in
the form of stamped and struck silver coins issued by the Lord Justices and Council,
the so-called 'Inchiquin', 'Dublin', and 'Ormonde' money; 1 and all the sources for this
kind of bullion had long been exhausted. Now it was the turn of what little gold as had
been collected or confiscated to be thrown into the melting-pot. Financial support
might be forthcoming for the Confederate Catholic cause through the papal nuncio,
Cardinal Rinuccini; the forces of Owen Roe O'Neill, victorious after their defeat of
Monro's evicted Scottish and Anglo-Irish planters at Benburb, might live off the countryside in traditional fashion; but the Lord Lieutenant, desperate to conclude at Kilkenny
the peace terms laid down by Charles I to his loyal Catholic subjects,2 had still to maintain his position in the capital.
1
O'Sullivan, op. cit., p. 141; P. J. Seaby, Coins and
Tokens of Ireland (1970), pp. 62, 64, 65.
2
As it happened the king had renounced his pledge
but Ormonde had not received the letter. See p. 87 n. 1.
87
Indeed the soldiers in Dublin and at the other garrison towns of the Pale were more
than likely to throw in their support for the English Parliament if succour was not
forthcoming. In England the beleaguered king had his own financial problems and
there was little or nothing that could be spared for Ireland, only promises of land settlement after the war was over. Non-combatants might starve, but the soldiers fought only
on their stomachs. So it was, when such money and supplies as Ormonde had been
receiving from the wealthy landowners of the Pale and from Queen Henrietta Maria—•
then living in France on a pension of 12,000 crowns a month from her sister-in-law, the
queen regent—had been exhausted, that the gold pledges, unofficial as they were, proved
to be almost the last stake in Ormonde's game. Eventually, of course, his cause was
lost; and the Parliamentary commissioners took over the city during April 1647.1
From the Ormonde papers housed in the National Library in Dublin we know the
total weekly budget of the garrison in April 1646 was £263. 9s., that the 2,594 soldiers,
paid at 12d. each per week, absorbed £129. 14s. and that the pay of officers, N.C.O.s,
and other expenses amounted to £133. 15j.2 The sum in French pistoles, having a
nominal value of 13s. Ad., could have been equivalent to something in excess of 5,000
gold coins quarterly. If, indeed, the issue of August 1646 was to last for a period of six
months, then at least 10,000 Irish pistoles would be needed, a sum which certainly
seems to have been sent over by Henrietta Maria probably at the behest of the king
during the summer of 1646. But Dublin was not the only garrison to be paid out of these
moneys. Soldiers holding out in other Protestant loyalist strongholds ('other guarrisons
neere adjacent') must be supported, and their numbers in aggregate might well have
exceeded those employed in the Dublin defence.
A very remarkable account in the Ormonde MSS.,3 would seem to underline the
position as set out above. Because of its importance in relation to the present inquiry
it is here transcribed in full.
[Page 289 (Recto):]
A note of the several sumes I delivered to Mr George Lane
£
July 10th 1646
July 31
Aug 1
To Mr Lane for my L d Lieuteir" wch L d Digby formerly borrowed
of his Ex cc
To Mr Lane for paying of out Garrisons
To Mr Lane for the paying of the Garrison of Dublin
Sume
\
I
ZM
s.
nfl
UU
d.
„„
~ ~UU
500-00-00
120-00-00
850-00-00
The overall sumes delivered to the sayd Mr Lane as the [s/c]
came from the mint for w ch I received his acquittances
Aug 1
Aug 1
Aug 8
Delivered to Mr Lane
More the said 1st of August
Delivered to Mr Lane
1
Historic background and argument have been
based on Richard Bagwell, Ireland under the Stuarts, ii
(reprinted by Holland Press, 1963), chapters xxviii
and xxix.
2
Ormonde MSS., vol. 14, Letters and Papers from
£
d.
500-00-00
120-00-00
300-00-00
28 March 1646 to 25 March 1646/7, pp. 3 9 4 0 and
47-8. The Parliamentary garrison at Hull received
about £305 per week, Acts and Ordnances of the
Interregnum 1642-1660, i, p. 858.
3
Ormonde MSS., vol. 14, pp. 289 and 292.
Aug 15
Aug 20
Aug 22
Delivered to M r Lane
600-00-00
075-00-00
027-00-00
1622-00-00
850-00-00
In witness that this is a true copy of my accmpt I have
hereunto sett my hand ffrans Slingesby.
The total sume
2472-00-00
[Page 292 (Verso):]
Mr Slingsbys note of what money I received f r o m him of the 10,000 pystoles sent by the Queene for
the Kings service in Ireland
22 August 1646
From this document we certainly learn a good deal, but by no means all the answers
are to be found here. For example, money for the 'out Garrisons' far exceeds that for
Dublin—over four times as much—and even £120 for the latter is slightly less than had
been reckoned for the soldiers alone in April, unless pay to the commissioned officers
and N.C.O.s, etc., was not carried out through Mr. Lane but was subject to a separate
pay roll. It could, of course, be that the size of the Dublin garrison had very greatly
decreased between April and August and that the 'out-garrisons' had per contra increased; but unless evidence is forthcoming this must be merely surmise. Further, if the
payment for the garrisons amounting to £620 was paid out twice, on 31 July/1 August
and again on 1 August (although the second entry does not specifically state what the
money was for), are we merely dealing with a fortnight's back pay overdue or with
arrears of pay and other army debts accrued over a much longer period ? For example
the £230, which was repayment of a loan to Ormonde on 10 July, looks surprisingly as
if 'His Excellency' had kept the garrison going for a short while entirely out of his own
private resources. Indeed, if the Castle treasury had been completely drained of all forms
of specie this must have determined the melting down of such gold bullion as was
available for reissue in the form of 'pledges'—a final recourse for upholding the local
defence forces.
But perhaps the most significant problem for us arises from the two conflicting
statements, one to the effect that a large part of the £2,472 was delivered 'as the came
from the mint' and, on the back, Lane's note of what money he received from Slingsby
'of the 10,000 pystoles sent by the Queen for the Kings Service in Ireland'. We know
that the warrant to Vaneyndhoven and Tongues for the making of the pledges was
dated 29 July 1646 (a Wednesday, as it happens) so it would appear that coins in considerable quantity were coming from 'the mint' two days later. If this 'mint' was centred
in Dublin—and any other interpretation is surely nonsense since shipments of the new
gold coin from the Paris mint cannot have been arriving in such comparatively small
quantities weekly or even at shorter intervals—then the arrangements for issue of the
pledges must have been well in hand before the warrant was signed and dated by
Ormonde.
Now why did the clerk who drew up the account leave out a letter, or more probably
a word, in his statement 'The overall sumes delivered to the sayd Mr. Lane as the came
from the mint for W ch I received his acquittances' ? Can this have been accidental or by
89
intent? The least we might have expected is they for the 'sumes' of money. But, after all,
it is surely coins which come from a mint and was he really expected to write down
'pledges' or worse still 'pieces' in an official receipt! Perhaps discretion prevented his
using 'pystoles' on this side of the document and for a very good reason. The Spanish
2-escudo piece at 104 grains and 21 carat 3-|- grain fineness was officially known as a
'pistole' 1 and the Irish piece was a fraction lighter as well as having a considerably lower
standard of gold, so the term might have met with official as well as unofficial objection,
even though later these coins came to be equated with Spanish and indeed with French
gold coins. The louis d'or and its double, first issued in 1640 under Louis XIII, weighing
a nominal 103J grains and 207 grains respectively, both struck at 22 carats fine, were
in fact almost certainly the models for the Irish pledges.2
More intriguing is the surmise that much of Henrietta Maria's 10,000 pistoles also
went into the melting-pot at Dublin, and this for two reasons. First, the money that the
queen dispatched to Ireland was not likely to have been all in the new louis d'or of her
brother's and young nephew's issues (1640-6) but probably made up to a large extent
of a mass of old gold coin then coming to the various ateliers in France for restriking;
and our suggestion is that she supplied Ormonde with mixed specie at a bullion weight
of 10,000 pistoles. Such variable foreign coinage would have been virtually impossible
to pay out to officers and men on any parity basis, so it, with the 'rings, chains and
broken plate', may have been sent to the two goldsmiths for reissue as new pistoles at
a standard of 19 carats and allowing any small amounts of silver with the consignment
to be alloyed with the gold.
Second, that there were at least some of the new French gold coins in the bulk
package and that these were distributed with the new Irish 'pistoles' to the garrisons, or
traders, and others who may have provided for the troops, is suggested by the fact that
in the Derryville hoard two louis d'or, one of Louis XIII (1640) and one of Louis XIV
(1643)3 came to light. But since the proportion is only two French to six Irish this may
well be a measure of the amount of current issue sent over by the English queen. The
other gold at Derryville is made up of English (75 pieces), Scottish (1), Spanish (14), and
Savoy (1) together with a further five English pieces of silver. In other words, there were
no French coins of the sixteenth century or earlier years of the seventeenth century in the
deposit, which is remarkable when the fourteen pieces of Spanish coin are found to
cover a period of at least eighty years.
But to revert to our original inquiry as to how much money might have been struck
in the form of Irish pledges. If, say, the single pistole is reckoned at one mark (135. 4d)
then from the account above it would appear that at least 2,433 pieces,4 possibly more,
were paid out to Mr. George Lane alone, as agent for military expenses. But this is most
unlikely to be the whole issue nor does it necessarily include any strikings of double
pistoles. Five dies are capable of striking over 20,000 coins on average,5 although this
1
The compact edition of the Oxford English Dictionary under 'Pistole' gives '1643 Decl. Commons
Irel. 49, Fourteene pieces of eight, and a double
pistole'. We are indebted to Mrs. Joan Martin of the
British Museum for this early reference. James Simon
Essay on Irish Coins (2nd edn., 1810), pp. 50 and 55,
gives the weight and value of French pistoles in 1660
and 1683 respectively. See also D. Westropp, 'Irish
Coin Weights', Proc. Roy. Irish Acad, xxxiii (1916),
p. 47, where French pistoles are referred to.
2
M. Dolley, BNJ xxxv (1966), pp. 152-A. For an
up-to-date account of the French louis d'or see Connaissance dcs Arts, no. 254 (April 1973), pp. 96-101.
3
Fully catalogued in the registers at the National
4
The conversion of £1,622.
Museum of Ireland.
5
4,000 per die or 8,000 per pair of dies on average
90
figure might be considered an optimum one and something between 10,000 and 20,000
is more likely. If, say, 15,000 pistoles and 3,000 double pistoles were produced by the
two goldsmiths in a space of three to four weeks then a sum of about £14,500 could have
been the output. Everything points to the issue in February following being much
smaller; and the probability is that not more than £20,000 in all was struck, or approximately 25,000 pieces from seven or at the most eight dies. The survival rate on this basis
would be for the double pistoles, 1:1,500 and for the single pistoles, 1:2,000. Since survival rate of issues, where they can be tested, seem mostly to lie between 1:1,000 and
1:6,000, the figures suggested fall well within the bounds of probability. 1 The goldsmiths,
at 6cl. each per pounds-worth struck, would appear to have done very well, but out of
a possible £250 each they had to provide all the equipment needed, make dies, hire
assistants, and take full responsibility for the standard of fineness of the gold coins
produced.
Check list of authentic pistoles and double pistoles
Pistoles (11): Plate 2.
P. 1
Dies (?). Obv. With serif to cross stroke of 4. Colons between, but not shown after, figures
and weights; the r with tail upcurled (being shown only as a sketch this might be a composite
die with features taken from both sides). Found 1839 and acquired by James Carruthers;
provenance and fate discussed ante, p. 80. (See Fig. 1.) Weight: 6-5445 grammes (101 grains).
P. 2
Dies 1 (recut) and 3 (recut). Obv. (1). With serif to cross stroke of 4 but colons between figures
and weights and also after the weights, but not readily apparent from the extant illustrations.
Rev. (3). 4 and 7 not properly determined but there are probably colons after both figures;
there are also colons after clwlt and gr, the latter being set high. In the possession of Sir
Montague Chapman, Bart., in 1850; for provenance and present whereabouts see ante,
p. 84. Weight: 6-5390 grammes (100-8 grains).
P. 3 (a) Dies (?). Recorded as being in the collection of Sir Montague Chapman, Bart., with P. 2, by
James Carruthers (1853), but not in the collection when sold in 1894. Possibly to be identified
with P. 3 (b). Weight: not stated.
P. 3 (b) Dies 1 and 3. Obv. (1). With two large spread pellets to colon after 4, neater colon after w",
colon after 7 set high and making a line of four pellets with that after 4, colon after gr set high
but just separated from that after w, upcurled end to r. Rev. (3). Colon after 4 closer set, one
pellet at end of cross stroke, no colon after w, colon after 7 closer set to point of figure, no
colon after r, the tail of which curves downwards. First mentioned as in the possession of
Dr. Aquilla Smith by Carruthers (1853); for provenance and present whereabouts see ante,
p. 82. Weight: 6-5975 grammes (101-9 grains).
P. 4 (a) Dies uncertain. Included on the strength of Carruthers's remark of 1853 that 'two of which
and
[pistoles] are in the British Museum'. The evidential value of this is discussed ante, p. 83.
P. 5 (a)
P. 4 (b) Dies 1 and 2. Obv. (1). As P. 3. Rev. (2). In the colon after 4 the upper pellet appears smaller
is based on studies of the output of Henry VIII AngloIrish harp groats which fall into a range of between
3,000 and 5,000 pieces per die. In the mid thirteenth
century the smaller penny dies were capable of producing 15,000 to 20,000 coins per trussel or 30,000
or 40,000 per pair of dies. See M. Mate, 'Coin Dies
under Edward 1 & II', NC 1969, pp. 211 and 217-18.
1
The survival rate of Henry III Anglo-Irish Dublin
pennies (2,225 photographically recorded, which is
believed to be at least 95 per cent of all those extant
against £43,239 issued between 1251 and 1254) works
out at 1:4,400. The survival rate of Tower-minted
Henry VIII harps and half-harps (approx. 400 photographically recorded, which is estimated to be about
75 per cent of all those extant against a minimum of
£16,000 and maximum of £32,000 believed to have
been issued between 1534 and 1541, and reckoned at
a ratio of 1 half to 12 whole groats) works out at
1:2,000 to 1:4,000.
i
91
than the lower, the pellets after 7 close together and in the same positions as those of die 3.
The colons after w and r (with upcurled tail) are both set high, the latter noticeably so. This
coin, with its companions P. 5 (b) and DP. 1 and 2, may have been taken out of circulation in
the seventeenth century in the time of John, second Earl of Bridgewater (1622-86), and have
passed from him to John, third Earl (1646-1701), and to Scroop, fourth Earl and first D u k e
of Bridgewater (1681-1745); it then passed with the Bridgewater collection to the first Earl
of Ellesmere (1800-57), who placed it in the British Museum while Bridgewater House was
being rebuilt in the late 1840s. The collection remained in an iron strong-box, known to
certain of the museum staff but to almost no other numismatist, until about 1900, when it was
returned to Francis Charles Granville, third Earl of Ellesmere, who had succeeded to the
title in 1862 and who died in 1914. See p. 85 above and also entry DP. 1. Bridgewater House
sale catalogue (1972), lot 551, illustrated; purchased by Spink £9,500; SNC 1972. Weight:
6-6615 grammes (102-8 grains).
P. 5 (b) Dies 1 and 5. Obv. (1). As P. 3. Rev. Large 4 apparently without colon or very weakly struck,
but colon after w in normal position; rather large 7 with normal small colon; flaw between g
and r (which is without much curve to tail), small colon. Provenance and history as last.
Bridgewater House sale catalogue (1972), lot 550, illustrated; purchased by Spink £9,000,
on behalf of a private collector. Purchased by Ulster Museum in 1975. Weight: 6-5900
grammes (101-7 grains).
P. 6
Dies 1 and 2. Obv. (1). As P. 3. Rev. (2). As P. 4. From the Derryville hoard. This pistole,
with P. 7 and P. 8, were part of the first group of coins to be found, recovered by the police
from the finders and others who had had them in their possession for some months after the
discovery (for which see the Sunday Independent (Dublin, 30 November 1947) and SCMB
1948, p. 62; also Blunt (1952-4), I. D. Brown (1955-7), and W. A. Seaby (1958-9)). From
information received from Dr. W. O'Sullivan (11 March 1960), the hoard was composed
of four separate finds, made on 22 March 1946, 25 February 1948, 26 February 1948, and
13 March 1948, the earliest by children as mentioned above. The latest coins of those recovered
were a Commonwealth unite with i.m. sun, and two double crowns with the same initialmark. These coins were first issued in 1649 and it seems possible that the deposit was made
in the initial stages of the Cromwellian campaigning. The pistole, together with its 5 fellows,
75 English gold, 5 English silver (c. 1558-1649), 1 Scottish gold rider of James VI (1594),
2 French, 1 Savoy, 14 Spanish, all gold (c. 1550-1644), were proved treasure trove and
deposited in the National Museum at Dublin. See W. O'Sullivan (1964), last paragraph;
Brown and Dolley (1971), Bibliography IQ5. Weight: 6-4950 grammes (100-2 grains).
P. 7
Dies 1 and 2. Obv. (1). As P. 3. Rev. (2). As P. 4. From the Derryville hoard. Same history as
P. 6. Weight: 6-3175 grammes (97-5 grains).
P. 8
Dies 1 and 3. Obv. (1). As P. 3. Rev. (2). As P. 3. From the Derryville hoard. Same history as
P. 6. Weight: 6-6650 grammes (102-8 grains).
P. 9
Dies 1 and 2. Obv. (1). As P. 3. Rev. (2). As P. 4. Also from the Derryville hoard; found with
P. 10 and P. 11 by army experts using magnetic instruments on the Derryville esker site, with
other gold coins, on or about 26 February 1948. Otherwise same history as P. 6. See O'Sullivan (1964), last paragraph. Weight: 6-6250 grammes (102-2 grains).
P. 10
Dies 1 and 2. Obv. (1). As P. 3. Rev. (2). As P. 4. From the Derryville hoard; found with P. 9
and P. 11. Same history as P. 9. Weight: 6-5425 grammes (100-9 grains).
P. 11
Dies 4 and 5. Obv. (4). Colon after 4 probably present but not apparent on the face of this
particular coin, colon after w on the linear circle, colon after 7 set well back, r with upcurled
tail and the colon relatively close to letter and well set back from the linear circle. Rev. (5).
As P. 5. From the Derryville hoard; found with P. 9 and P. 10. Same history as P. 9. Weight:
6-6075 grammes (102 grains).
Double pistoles (2): Plate 2.
DP. 1
Dies 1 and 2. Obv. (1). Well-formed 8 with colon; a flaw, like a pellet, at base of loop in cl,
colon after w set high but vertical; normal 14, traces of colon, but gr and colon not struck up
on this coin or on DP. 2 to give details. Rev. (2). Figure 8 shows flaws which mostly fill lower
loop, dw and part of it obscured by not being struck up on this or on DP. 2, but colon of
small pellets in normal position; colon after 14 and gr in normal positions. Same history as
P. 4 (b). Bridgewater House sale catalogue (1972), lot 548 (but illustrated as 549); purchased
by Spink £13,500, on behalf of the National Museum of Ireland. Weight: 13-2575 grammes
(204-6 grains).
DP. 2
Dies 1 and 2. Obv. (1). As DP. 1. Rev. (2). As DP. 2. Same history as DP. 1 and P. 4 (b).
Bridgewater House sale catalogue (1972), lot 549 (but illustrated as 548); purchased by
Spink £13,000, on behalf of the British Museum. Weight: 13-3280 grammes (205-6 grains).
N o t e : Specimens P. 3 (b), P. 4 (b) and D P . 1 were lent to the exhibition 'Irish Coinage through
the Ages' held at the Ulster Museum, Belfast, April-June 1969.
APPENDIX
A
Bibliography to the authentic coins in chronological sequence (footnote and page
references where given are to the present paper; items not referred to in it are of no
independent significance but are included here for the sake of completeness).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Holograph letter from Carruthers to Dawson, 1839 (p. 80 n. 4, also p. 82).
J. Carruthers, UJA i (1853), p. 164 (p. 82 n. 2 and p. 85).
Carruthers Sale Catalogue, 1857 (see p. 81).
Aquilla Smith in JRSAI (1860), pp. 16 and 143-4 (p. 82 n. 1 and n. 5, etc.).
(Note here a gap of some 34 years, but see under Stewart and Thorburn.)
Chapman sale catalogue, 1894 (see p. 84).
G. Coffey, Guide to Coins in R.I.A., etc. (1895), p. 91, also 2nd edn. (1911), p. 79 (p. 83 n. 4).
H, A. Grueber, Handbook of the Coins of Great Britain and Ireland in the British Museum (1899),
p. 235, but no illustration is shown in the plates.
Murdoch Sale Catalogue, 1904 (see p. 84).
Stewart and Thorburn, The Coins of Great Britain and Ireland (4th edn. revised by Grueber, 1905),
p. 215 and pi. xxxv, no. 306 (see p. 84 n. 2 with regard to earlier editions which mention the
pistole).
P. Nelson, 'The Obsidional Money of the Great Rebellion', BNJii (1905), pp. 333-4. This includes
the earliest printed numismatic reference to the double pistoles which the authors have so far
traced (p. 84 n. 3).
Spink's Num. Circ. (Nov. 1906), col. 9482 and (Jan. 1911), col. 12536 (see p. 84 n. 4).
(Note here a gap of some 36 years.)
A. Frey, Dictionary of Numismatic Names (U.S.A., 1947), p. 112.
Sunday Independent, Dublin (30 Nov. 1947) (see p. 91).
Seabf s Coin and Medal Bulletin, no. 357 (Feb. 1948), p. 62 (see p. 91).
C. E. Blunt, BNJ xxvii (1952-4), p. 215 (see p. 91).
I. D. Brown, BNJ xxviii (1955-7), p. 601 (see p. 91).
W. A. Seaby, 'Two Coin Hoards of the Rebellion Period, 1641-9, from Ulster', BNJ xxix (1958-9),
p. 411, entry 22, where a summary of the Portarlington hoard is given (see p. 91).
R. A. G. Carson, Coins, Ancient Medieval and Modern (1962), p. 265.
A. E. J. Went, 'The Coinage of Ireland', Ireland of the Welcomes, xii, no. 4 (Nov.-Dec. 1963),
p. 23.
W. O'Sullivan, BNJ xxxiii (1964), pp. 141-50 (p. 80 n. 1, pp. 81 and 85). (This writer lists
most of the standard works on Irish coins to 1947 which cover the period of Charles I, and he
comments on those authorities making no mention of the Irish pistole; but he failed to note that
Carruthers in 1853 had used the word 'pistole' and similarly that Dr. Smith in 1860, on pp. 143-4
of JRSAI (Kilkenny), vi, formally designated his gold piece 'a pistole'.)
93
21. R. Friedberg, Gold Coins of the World (2nd edn., New York, 1965), p. 247; (3rd edn., 1971), p. 251.
22. M. Dolley, BNJxxxw
(1966), pp. 152-4 (p. 80 n. 2 and p. 89 n. 2).
23. A. Dowle and P. Finn, Guide Book to the Coinage of Ireland (1969), p. 56. The coin there illustrated,
no. 269, is P. 3 (b). Their no. 270, based on a misconception in 10. P. Nelson, is non-existent.
24. P. J. Seaby, Coins and Tokens of Ireland (1970), p. 66. The illustrations are Bridgewater House
coins, P. 4 (b) and D.P. 1 (see pp. 86 n. 1, pp. 90 and 91). Note too Seabys Standard Catalogue of
Coins of Great Britain and Ireland (10th edn., 1960), p. 94, no. 3527. This work, like earlier editions,
makes mention of the pistole only.
25. I. D. Brown and M. Dolley, Coin Hoards 1500-1967 (1971), pp. 77-8 (p. 85 n. 1 and p. 91). By
implication.
26. Bridgewater House Sale Catalogue, 1972 (see pp. 85, 90-2). The foreword to the catalogue gives
some valuable notes on the history of the collection.
27. Irish Times (17 June 1972), under 'Record price for Irish Coin'.
28. Irish Numismatics
(July-Aug. 1972), p. 178.
29. The Times (9 Aug. 1972), under 'Record prices paid for coins'.
30. Spinks Num. Circ. (Dec. 1972), p. 471 (see p. 91).
APPENDIX B
THE AMERICAN COUNTERFEIT
PISTOLES
It remains to discuss a group of false gold coins which first came to our notice in September 1971 when Mr. Peter Mitchell, of Messrs. Baldwin & Sons Ltd., showed to one
of us (W. A. S.) polaroid photographs of two examples which had been sent to him from
America and which he thought were counterfeits, but on which he sought a second
opinion. It was at once noticeable that both coins were from the same pair of dies, and
were made out of what appeared to be hammered plate. This in itself was suspicious, for
the warrant of 1646 had laid down that the metal be of a specific alloy, which would
have meant that all gold used for the manufacture of the coins ought to have passed
through the crucible, unlike the stamped cut silver plate of the earlier issues by the Lord
Justices in 1642 (the so-called Inchiquin money). One of these pistoles, too, had a large
piercing through a lug or surplus of border metal, swelling out beyond the beading, a
feature which in itself was highly unconvincing.
But worse was to come. Further examination of the coins showed that the two dies
used for striking the coins (or for casting them?) were extremely close to dies 1 and 3
of the originals but differed from them in certain small details, while when the coins
were placed alongside Aquilla Smith's drawing of 1860 it was found that the designs
coincided almost exactly. In other words both sides of the coins in question imitated
minutely an illustration which had been subjected in the nineteenth century to processing
for book plate reproduction, with such slight defects that must occur; and the coins were
certainly not struck from any of the actual known dies all of which had then been recorded photographically. This proved the falsity of the two pieces beyond question. An
answer along these lines was sent to Mr. Mitchell who duly acknowledged the information.
Rather more than a year later Mr. Patrick Finn, of Messrs. Spink & Son Ltd., sent
a somewhat similar letter to the Ulster Museum enclosing some enlarged coloured
photographic prints of another 'pistole', which appeared to be from very similar dies
or moulds. Mr. Finn had at once recognized the coin as counterfeit and said in his letter
that it was 'exactly the same as the one I saw in New Orleans and I do not know how
many are going around'. His letter went on 'I suppose they were manufactured by a
plaster cast technique but I am not sure which coin they used to copy from'. Subsequent
information revealed that the coin of which the photographs had been sent to Belfast
was in the possession of Mr. Cornelius McAuliffe of Lansing, Michigan, U.S.A. Mr.
Finn was also reasonably sure that he knew the identity of the perpetrator of the counterfeits, a clever die-engraver who lived on the coast of California. A letter bearing on the
subject of these forgeries was sent to Mr. Russell Rulau who published the substance of
it in Coin World (28 February 1973), p. 9.
From the information already obtained Mr. McAuliffe was warned by Mr. Finn, and
separately by W. A. S., that his pistole was spurious but by that time he had already
taken the matter to a third referee, the director of the American Numismatic Association
Certification Service. Most unfortunately a panel of that organization, without consulting numismatic specialists, either in Ireland or in Britain, gave a certificate of authenticity to Mr. McAuliffe in April, partly, it seems, on the basis of the metal content.
Incidentally this was found to be almost pure gold, having therefore a much lower alloy
of silver or copper than would have been likely or indeed possible in any of the original
coins.
This result proved too much for those of us who had devoted considerable research
in sorting out the genuine coins from the copies; and Mr. Michael Dolley, who up to
that time had been a silent but very interested onlooker, wrote in April 1973 a somewhat
caustic letter of inquiry to Mr. Charles Hoskins. But, receiving no reply, he sent a
strongly worded letter to the President of the A.N.A. suggesting the certificate be withdrawn or the A.N.A. must bear the full onus of providing undoubted proof of the
pistole's authenticity. In July 1973 a belated reply to Mr. Dolley's first letter was received
in Belfast from Mr. Virgil Hancock of the International Section of the A.N.A., with a
sincere apology and an explanation of how the mistake probably arose. Mr. Hoskins
on a second examination of the coin had been prepared to withdraw the certificate, and
it was agreed that a very searching investigation of the forgeries would be made, for he
believed that no fewer than eleven false pistoles could be accounted for, and that the
name of the man who had manufactured them was known to the Association.
Meanwhile a letter had been received by Mr. Finn from the Bowers and Ruddy
Galleries Inc. of Hollywood, California, the firm that had originally sold the coin to
Mr. McAuliffe, stating that should the coin prove to be false they would willingly refund
the collector his money. With suitable acknowledgements between the various interested
parties on both sides of the Atlantic the matter now rests, and a two-page report by
Virgil Hancock on the false coins has been published in the August 1973 number of The
Numismatist, pp. 1382-3, under the heading 'Featuring Fakes'; while a second up-todate and much fuller account of the investigation is given by Mr. Derek Young under
the title 'The Authenticated forgery' in Irish Numismatics, no. 35 (Sept.-Oct. 1973),
pp. 193-6, the McAuliffe specimen being illustrated on the cover, p. 185. Further notes
on the exposure are in Irish Numismatics, no. 36 (Nov.-Dec. 1973), p. 233. This and the
two earlier examples examined are illustrated on PI. 2, C.P. 3, C.P. 1, and C.P. 2.
95
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The writers wish to express their indebtedness to a number of persons who have assisted
in piecing together this background account of the Irish gold coins. It was really at the
instigation of Mr. Michael Dolley that the inquiry was set on foot in the first instance
and both of us recognize how greatly he has helped with his advice on many points
throughout, although the authors are alone responsible for any conclusions set down
here, whether right or wrong. Mr. John Teahan, Keeper of the Art and Industrial
Division of the National Museum at Dublin, and other members of the staff there have
been co-operative and given their usual courtesy in allowing us to photograph and
weigh the coins in their custody and to examine the original registers. The same may
be said for Miss Marion Archibald and Mrs. Joan Martin at the British Museum, in
answering innumerable inquiries on our behalf. We are grateful to the Duke of Sutherland, not only for allowing one of us to photograph his Irish coins prior to the Bridgewater House sale, but also for the loan of two of the specimens for display at Belfast in
1969. Miss J. Fagerlie of the American Numismatic Society in New York also kindly
assisted us with weight, s.g., and photographs of the pistole in the possession of the
Society, while the good services of Mr. Patrick Finn, acting as an intermediary on many
occasions, have been evident from the start.
Mr. Christopher Blunt kindly sent an account of his presence at the opening of the
cabinet of coins at Bridgewater House in 1936 when the pistoles and double pistoles
first came to his notice. We must also extend our gratitude to Mr. Colm Gallaher for
making a further search of the Ormonde MSS. at the National Library of Ireland in
case any contemporary notices of the Irish issues had escaped detection, and to the
Assay authorities in Dublin who searched through seventeenth-century records of the
Goldsmiths' Company to try and discover whether anything further on the minting of
the coins might be traced; but in the event both these investigations proved negative.
Mr. Stuart Lane of Kilcock and London has been consulted at different times and we
would like to believe it was one of his ancestors, known to have settled in Ireland before
the mid seventeenth century, to whom the pistoles were paid in 1646! Lastly we should
mention that we have had correspondence and private discussion with Dr. William
O'Sullivan, who has given freely of his time; he had the unique experience of helping to
track down more than half the extant number of Irish pistoles, as well as being the first
to recognize exactly when they were issued.
In regard to the detection of the counterfeit coins, besides those persons already mentioned in the text and whose help we freely acknowledge, we might mention Mr. Peter
Seaby, Mr. Emil Szauer, and Father Gerard Rice, all of whom have played some part
in building up the story.
PLATE II
THE O R M O N D E
G O L D PISTOLES, D O U B L E PISTOLES A N D M O D E R N
COUNTERFEITS
V O L . XLI1I
rLA 1 E
111
*UL.
ALIII
P L A T E IV
V O L . XLIII

the extant ormonde pistoles and double pistoles of 1646

Transcription

Similar documents

Shove ha`penny - North Road Community Primary School

`Fourth Century Coins Discovered at St Andrew`s Theological College.`

ebook link : PDF

Mexico Gold 50 Pesos AGW 1.2057 (Random Year)

A Coenwulf Penny by Wihtred from Bidford-on

There are two rules to cleaning coins: Clad Coins Wheat Pennies

150th Anniversary of the Birth of Kazimierz Przerwa

A third gold coin of Mercia

precious metals at a glance

The euro banknotes and coins